bend wrote:

MYOHTA wrote:

Does early resolution count toward the insititual delay for 11b?

Nope. It's considered a neutral intake period.

That's not conclusive, it's been debated.

R. v. Jair, 2013 ONCJ 142

19. Ms. Penkow argued that the 5 month delay for the Early Resolution Meeting rests at Ms. Jairs feet. I do not agree with that argument. In Andrade, supra, at paragraph 58, Justice Libman noted that:

While the City may consider that if a defendant finds the date or time of day given for trial to be inconvenient, an adjournment request can be arranged, this is not the approach adopted for police witnesses, and I do not therefore consider this to be an even-handed way of scheduling trials, particularly for the growing number of unrepresented defendants who may lack the means or understanding of how to change their assigned trial date, and are given no instructions in the notice of trial as to how to do so. Stated shortly, a delay caused by an unfair practice or procedure cannot be reasonable within the meaning of s. 11(b) of the Charter.

20. Ms. Penkow cited the case of R. v. Syed Khan (unreported- Jan.27, 2011- Halton Prov. Offences Office- File No. 95128045) which is noted at paragraphs 70 to 74 of the Szewczyk decision. In Khan, supra, referred to in Szewcyk, at paragraph 72, Justice Zisman concluded that if a self-represented defendant was unhappy with how long an early resolution meeting was taking, she could always cancel the resolution meeting and proceed straight to trial. By accepting an early resolution meeting, there was an implicit waiver by a self-represented defendant.

21. Where the Khan and Andrade decisions are in conflict, I prefer Justice Libmans analysis. With respect to the Intake Period, Justice Libman was working on an evidentiary basis and heard evidence from a court manager on how trial matters are scheduled. Second, there was a comparative jurisdictional analysis of Intake periods throughout Ontario. Finally, Justice Libman referred to the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission and the specific concerns in which dates are set involving self-represented persons. See Andrade supra at paragraphs 58 to 61.

Decatur wrote:

Option 2 in some jurisdictions is an early resolution meeting and they do not have the "guilty with and explanation option"

Okay that is good to know! Hopefully thats what Option 2 was in this case!

If Option 2 was the GUILTY WITH AN EXPLANATION option, can you change your plea from GUILTY to NOT GUILTY? Just curious if anybody knows whether this is possible or not?

By pleading guilty, you can't change it. That's why some jurisdictions have Early Resolution, since they are leaving it open for discussion. The plea bargaining would take place on the day of trial anyway, so an early meeting with a Prosecutor saves court time versus a "guilty, guilty with explanation or not guilty" offence certificate.

sorry havent seen if anyone mentioned this,

but demerit or no demerit points has no effect on insurance

only convictions count, so if you get a conviction, major or minor, its on your record and "could" effect you renewal

coolhandluc wrote:

What would be a better approach to do? The police officer who issued the ticket did tell me that the prosecutor could give me the charge as owner of the vehicle which means I would pay the $490 fine but no demerit points and no effect on insurance. I know I was not in the wrong but at this point I just want this headache to be over with and if I have to pay $490 so it does not effect my insurance then its tough luck for me but that is life.

I had the meeting today. They only offered to reduce the fine amount as the prosecutor said that is all she could do at this point. The meeting was rather pointless as it lasted maybe 2 minutes and she got up twice to go check on something. I don't even think she was listening to me. She just read the officers notes pretty much to herself and then said this is all I could do for now. She said to bring ownership to trail as maybe they could do the ownership charge. Gave me the request for closure form and told me to file it when I get my trail date.

Interesting however is that when she read the officers notes, the officer notes it happened at a different location than what she has written on the ticket and I am pretty sure the officer only made mention to the stop arm being out and nothing about the overhead lights being on which to my understanding section 175(11) for which I am being charged with, only makes mention to the overhead lights.

I am going to wait for the officers notes before deciding weather or not the hire a paralegal to fight this for me. Anyone have any recommendations for Hamilton?

Yes definitely get your disclosure of the officers notes and then decide what to do. Section 175(11) reads:

Duty of drivers when school bus stopped

(11) Every driver or street car operator, when meeting on a highway, other than a highway with a median strip, a stopped school bus that has its overhead red signal-lights flashing, shall stop before reaching the bus and shall not proceed until the bus moves or the overhead red signal-lights have stopped flashing. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 175 (11).

So a couple of the elements they need to prove are:

(1) You were the driver of a vehicle.

(2) You were on a highway.

(3) You did not stop for the school bus, and

(4) The overhead red signal-lights on the bus were flashing.

The key one here will be if the officer does or does not state in his notes that the lights were flashing. There is nothing in section 175(11) about the Stop arm, so if the Stop arm is out but the lights are not flashing then you do not have to stop according to 175(11).

Will be interesting to see what the notes say! Please post them when you receive them.

jsherk wrote:

Yes definitely get your disclosure of the officers notes and then decide what to do. Section 175(11) reads:

Duty of drivers when school bus stopped

(11) Every driver or street car operator, when meeting on a highway, other than a highway with a median strip, a stopped school bus that has its overhead red signal-lights flashing, shall stop before reaching the bus and shall not proceed until the bus moves or the overhead red signal-lights have stopped flashing. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 175 (11).

So a couple of the elements they need to prove are:

(1) You were the driver of a vehicle.

(2) You were on a highway.

(3) You did not stop for the school bus, and

(4) The overhead red signal-lights on the bus were flashing.

The key one here will be if the officer does or does not state in his notes that the lights were flashing. There is nothing in section 175(11) about the Stop arm, so if the Stop arm is out but the lights are not flashing then you do not have to stop according to 175(11).

Will be interesting to see what the notes say! Please post them when you receive them.

jsherk : Lets say no notes of some important fact about the case. Can the police bring it up with prosecutor in the trial and that will consider valid? Since if police make a point that is crucial to the conviction, judge will believe them anyway assuming the defendant doesnt know how to defend themselves which many have no idea what they are doing in the court.

In order to win, you would need to understand cross-examination. If you have never been to court and do not understand how it works and do not know how to cross-examine, then you will most likely lose.

So yes, they can bring it up, however a good cross examiner can bring reasonable doubt to items that are not in the notes.

And if they do not bring it up at all and it is one of the elements they must prove, you can make a motion of non suit right before your cross examination.

You could hire a paralegal, but you might want to interview several and find one that is willing to share how they will cross examine officer about missing items in notes. Just like everything else, there are good ones and bad ones, so if you are going to pay one, you better know what you are getting.

You might want to read this:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7039.html

Im not going to trial. Im just trying to learn something using that scenario. I went to court, but dont see any trial much. Maybe went there the wrong time. It would be hard to know which paralegal is good as well.